While watching TV this week, I discovered that political correctness has hit a new low. According to someone who called themselves a cultural expert, there are many Halloween costumes that should be avoided lest someone gets offended. Some of them I agreed with. However, the one I found the height of silliness was not to dress up as a prisoner for fear they would be offended. Now, I am sorry, but I don’t care if a prisoner gets offended. They offend me. Halloween is supposed to be for children to have fun. Why do some people feel they have to suck the life out of it for the kids? Let them have one night where they don’t have to worry they might offend somebody. Next will be don’t dress like Santa Claus or you might offend him. I find political correctness offensive and I am sure lots of other people do too. Let’s let the children have fun.

Joan Stuart

Richmond Hill

(We doubt many prisoners care how kids dress up for Halloween)

BROWN WRONG AGAIN

Re “Brown wrong” (Letters to the Editor, Oct. 24): The letter writer, in response to an article about Patrick Brown shutting down PC so-cons, states he will now only vote for a politician who represents his “views” and “can be counted on to be honest and straightforward.” Well, actually, so-cons believed Brown was “honest and straightforward” when we supported his leadership bid — and urged our friends to join us. He went on to betray us, and now this party leader whose campaign trumpeted absolute loyalty to the grassroots has been in the business of attempting to parachute handpicked candidates into ridings — with potentially more to come. The question begs: How does anyone determine which candidate is not lying for the sake of votes?

Donna Procher

Innisfil

(It seems many social conservatives care more about defeating Brown than Kathleen Wynne)

NO REASON

Unfortunately, the three party leaders in Ontario recently proved that it is impossible to have an adult discussion about anything at the political level. All three leaders were responding to the Quebec law banning those with face coverings from getting public services. They agreed that the state has no right to tell you what to wear. If I understand the legislation correctly, it is not telling women what to wear. It is stating that if your face is covered, you will not be allowed to access public services. How is this law different from the sign that appears in many stores and restaurants: No shirt, no shoes, no service? The leaders’ comments bring up other issues. If showing your face is not important, why do we have photo ID for a driver’s licence and a health card? Why does the highway traffic legislation require that your face be visible when driving a motor vehicle? It would be beneficial to have a reasoned discussion about this topic, however, that is not likely to happen.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.